The problem with archiving in JPEG is that you will actually lose
quality each time you re-save the file. Not only does this make sense
in theory given the compression algorithm, but I've actually seen it
happen. It's not huge but it's there. Now I use compressed TIFF for
archiving, although I'm considering switching to PNG. PNG is lossless
and file sizes are comparable to compressed TIFFs, but don't rely on a
proprietary compression algorithm so some believe there is a greater
chance you'll actually be able to read your files 20 years from now.
Only problem is that it takes an extra conversion step since most
scanner software (and most DSLRs) don't support direct saving
of/conversion to PNG. Like I said, I'm considering switching formats,
I just haven't done it yet.
-Matt
On Sunday, July 6, 2003, at 07:08 AM, Lon Williamson wrote:
I've noticed the same thing on scans. A good quality JPEG
is virtually indistinguishable from a TIFF, and a heck of
a lot smaller. I archive in JPEG.
Cotty wrote, in part:
A 2.5 MB jpeg / a larger RAW file / a massive MF digital file = all
printed on an inkjet at 300 dpi - I defy anyone to tell the
difference.
